LEICA 90mm f/2.8 TELE-ELMARIT-M (39mm filter, 7.957 oz./225.6g). enlarge. I got this one at this link to it at eBay; Adorama also sells them. It helps me keep adding to this site when you get yours from these links, thanks!

The LEICA TELE-ELMARIT-M 90mm f/2.8 is LEICA's purest long lens. It is LEICA's ideal combination of speed, optical quality, small size and light weight. It's smaller than a 77mm lens cap!

Purest means truest to Oskar Barnack's vision for the LEICA. This 90mm TELE breathes life into his vision as one of LEICA's smallest and lightest 90mm lenses ever, as well as being both fast (f/2.8) and of very high optical quality.

LEICA's current 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M ASPH is better optically in some ways that few people will ever notice, but it weighs twice as much. Therefore the 90mm APO is untrue to LEICA's vision.

LEICA's current 90/2.5 Summarit-M is much smaller than the 90mm f/2 ASPH, but still bigger and heavier than this f/2.8 TELE. Not only that, but this 90mm tele sells used for about one-third the cost of the new 90mm f/2.5, and is still smaller and lighter. Yes, the current 90mm f/2.5 is optically a bit better wide-open, but this tele is as good for real photography and much better made mechanically.

LEICA's current 90/4 MACRO-ELMAR-M is sharper wide-open, focuses more closely, is 3g lighter and slightly smaller than this f/2.8 TELE-M. It costs a lot more, and is a stop slower. If money is no object, get the MACRO-ELMAR-M instead for travel; it also collapses to become even smaller for carrying.

The two versions are indistinguishable from each other except for saying "MADE IN CANADA" or "MADE IN GERMANY" on the front ring, or by the higher serial numbers of the German versions.

Canadian versions run about serial numbers 2,585,000 ~ 3,451,999.

German versions run about serial numbers 3,383,000 ~ 3,540,000.

I have compared and shot them directly against each other, and there is no difference whatsoever optically or mechanically. Not only are the images indistinguishable on film, LEICA's quality control is so tight that even the colors of the coatings match perfectly between the two.

Personally I'll always pay a premium for anything MADE IN GERMANY, but if you want a great lens, don't worry about getting the Maple Leaf version, since that's probably all you'll find.

Germans call this E39 and 39E, but it's the same standard 39mm (0.50mm pitch) filter that's been available everywhere for decades and decades.

The 0.5mm thread pitch for 39mm filters hasn't changed since at least the 1940s. The only gotcha is that some crappy off-brands accidentally make 39mm accessories using the incorrect coarser pitch (0.75mm) of larger filters, which of course make them incompatible with standard 39mm lenses and accessories

Stick with Hoya and B+W and you'll have no problems.

If you are crazy, you can use the no-longer available LEICA 11 251 adapter and use unavailable series 5.5 filters instead.

Accurate at all distances, but the short-base rangefinder is imprecise, leading to not-always-perfect focus. Shoot a few shots of the same thing, and the shot group is centered at the right distance, but individual shots will vary from frame-to-frame more than the consistent results I get from the grown-up sized LEICAs.

I have not tried it on the Voigtlanders, which all use baby-length rangefinders. I suspect this will lead to imprecise focus, but that's not the lens: it's a limitation of the cameras.

If you're coming from shooting zooms or SLR lenses, you're in for a treat: this tiny TELE lens is better than what you're used to!

You can't check sharpness with color prints. You have to shoot B&W or Fuji Velvia 50 and look at it under high magnification (equivalent to at least 30 x 40" prints) to see anything meaningful. I shoot Velvia 50 and look at it at 40x magnification. I was always amused by LEICAphiles who thought they could see sharpness in 5x7" machine prints — you can't.

This 90/2.8 is always sharp in the center. At f/4 and f/2.8 the corners get a little softer, but no more than a zoom, and the center is still sharp and contrasty.

Compared directly to the world-leading 90mm f/2 APO APSH, it's the same at f/5.6 and smaller, but since the crazy-good 90 APO stays just as sharp, even at f/2, if you're making direct comparison tests, the APO is sharper at f/4 and f/2.8 in the corners.

Your biggest barrier to sharpness isn't your choice of this tele versus the LEICA 90mm f/2 APO, it's the simple fact that half of the camera and lens combinations I've used aren't perfectly adjusted for focus. Half of the time, your camera's rangefinder (or rarely, your lens) will be out of adjustment enough that the focus is off by just enough to rob you of sharpness at the larger apertures.

Before you go whining about a lens, be certain your rangefinder is perfectly adjusted. They drift and need attention from a specialist every few years.

How do you check focus? Go make a bunch of shots at f/2.8 at various distances and check that the resulting images are focused exactly on your intended subject.

Be careful: if your film has sat overnight, as you wind to the next frame you may have a slight kink in the film from where it sat on the edge of the spool. This often leads to having a slight lack of flatness for the next frame.

This subtlety happens in most cameras; I haven't specifically seen it in LEICA, but if you're checking focus accuracy, be aware that this can throw a frame off.

LEICA tells us that f/5.6 is optimum, and for all I can see this is true, but it only applies if your subject is completely flat, or entirely at infinity. LEICA doesn't say, but I suspect their figure is for the center, not the edges.

For real photographs, stop down as needed for depth-of-field.

If your subject is flat, it's probably going to be a boring photograph anyway.

For flat or infinity subjects, I find f/5.6 or f/8 is optimum. The corners get softer at f/4 and f/2.8, and diffraction sets in at f/8 and smaller.

Be careful: the smaller rangefinder base along with the fact that rangefinder cameras are pushing it for precise focus with long lenses means that you might not always get perfect results shooting at f/2.8. This isn't the lens, its a limitation of rangefinder cameras.

* Your camera's rangefinder calibration is going to make more of a difference in sharpness than the difference among these lenses. If, and only if, you got a perfectly adjusted system will you be able to notice any differences.

This, or the more expensive and even smaller 90/4 MACRO-ELMAR-M, is the best tele lens for the LEICA, presuming you're shooting the LEICA as it was intended by its creator.

The only reason to shoot a bigger, heavier or more expensive lens is only if you need a tiny bit more sharpness in the corners at f/4 and f/2.8, or if you need the added speed of f/2.

By comparison, the current 90mm f/2.5 Summarit-M is a bit sharper at f/4, f/2.8 and a third of a stop faster, but it doesn't feel as good in hand for its sloppier construction, and you'll only find it new for at least triple the price of this TELE 90. The 90/2.5 Summarit-M is also bigger, fatter and takes bigger filters.

The recently discontinued (and now classic) 90/2.8 ELMARIT-M has optics as good as the 90mm f/2.5 Summarit-M and 90mm f/2 ASPH, but it takes bigger filters and weighs almost twice what this tele does.

The LEICA man cares not the price. The LEICA man only wants the best, which is the APO-Summicron-M 90mm f/2 ASPH, which costs ten times what this 90mm f/2.8 TELE does. The LEICA Man is not interested in discontinued product, nor the discount f/2.5 Summarit-M.

The biggest help is to use these links to Adorama, Amazon, B&H, Calumet, Ritz, J&R and
when you get your goodies. It costs you nothing and is a huge help to me. eBay is always a gamble, but all the other places have the best prices and service, which is why I've used them since before this website existed. I recommend them all personally.